It would work if there are said alternates aren’t as congested to reach from one point to the other, there are more Diagonal streets and the corridors in which it is alternating from stayed in a continuous direction following Wilshire. I can only see one portion of the route that you could veer off of Wilshire by going on San Vicente and Burton way to get around Beverly Hills, but then you immediately hit a wall of Santa Monica Blvd traffic or worse north-south congested corridor like La Cienega or Fairfax which negates any time advantage you have. Also in some stretches between Westwood and Beverly

The other piece is that 920 is a dog in ridership it’s only carrying 3500 riders with no new riders and it’s ridership is dropping. That is key because all we are doing is shifting existing 720 riders onto the 920 and using more resources to move the same number of people that would be better used for additional 720 trips between Westwood and Wilshire/Vermont.

1. Don’t be too quick to recommend canceling 920. Its role is to be a limited-limited, a 300-series line for 720, if you will. Just convert the line to a blue-bus express line and run point-to-point service. Line 920 would not have to run on Wilshire, either. The driver could use any arterial to drive the fastest path. Line 920 can be the Beverly Hills express, stopping only at La Cienega and Beverly Drive. A new Line 921 can be a Century City and Westwood express, stopping only at the hub stop on Constellation and then Wilshire and Westwood.

Both bus lines can use any other street that happens to be the fastest, just as long as the driver makes those stops.

There’s no 922 farther west into Santa Monica, because that city has a blue-bus express of its own that works just as well. :>

2. There’s still the problem of 20s holding up a pack of 720s. Solution: Move Line 20 onto Sixth Street, the next block north. It’s contiguous up to Fairfax (the part between Fairfax and San Vicente is residential and because of parking, narrows to one lane).

If there are concerns that the residential area between Wilton and La Brea would fight buses on Sixth, busy lines along residential streets have precedent on Melrose, Beverly, Third, Wilshire (sorta) and Olympic.

However I can see a few small fixes to the problem of leapfrogging buses along Wilshire.

First the opertion of the 20-720-920. With the bus lane, the 920 Rapid express becomes redundant and can be eliminated because the lane improves the reliability and trip times so the 920 isn’t needed. So instead of 3 routes, we’re down to two.

Next with the Route 20, they should make all bus stops near side bus stops with Bus queue jumpers and combine local and Rapid stops. Why is that important if the local bus is making a stop and a Rapid is coming behind it. With the queue jumping the Rapid would gain a headstart on other traffic as to move over a lane and go around the local bus and merge to the dedicated lane. The combined local-rapid stop simplifies boardings and transfers between both types of services.

The next thing for the 20 is operate only low floor buses. Having all low-floor buses on this local route speeds up loading/unloading at bus stops for both regular and wheelchairs so less time is spent idiling to load a wheelchair passenger or have elderly passengers climb up steep steps on a full high floor bus which reduces dwell time for the local buses and keeps the buses moving. The 720 should take the next step like the Orange Line and have at busier stops fare validators and allow for multiple door boarding.

In other words, we should be talking about additional elements to the bus only lane instead of just the bus only lane. Like it or not even when we build the Subway to Westwood we’ll need the bus only lane so this project is inevitable.

I won’t dignify the condescending Mr. Damien Goodmon and his insults with a response beyond noting I know a demagogue when I see one, especially one whose chief expertise isn’t so much transportation advocacy as it is self-promotion. And I’m especially looking forward to whether Steve Hymon picks up on my suggestion and starts poking around in re the involvement of the Cheviot Hill NIMBYs with the PUC’s hearing on Expo grade crossing issues in South L.A. How about it, Mr. Goodmon–any of the funds in your coffers come from the Westsiders who hope South L.A is going to carry their water? And what do your allies think of that? If I had been dragging myself to a lot of meetings and then learned a shadowy group of folks were really calling the shots from behind the scenes I know I’d be angry at having been manipulated.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/11/things-im-think.html#comments

I see comment boards as the place where I figure out what other people are thinking and it tends to force me to refine my own thoughts on issues and what points are most debated and what the counter arguments are. Comment boards are the practice that allows me to come up with stronger work for my own writing and discussions later. A lot of the strongest and most viewed material on my own blogs began as or was influenced by comment board participation and observation.

Turn on your brains – these ridiculously long comment wars are a waste of time – GET A BLOG! (and post to it) Jeez, I should call all your moms.

BRT is a good idea and will help move people faster.

Dana, I don’t live too far away from you and I also see Wilshire every day. I have to disagree with you about Wilshire BRT.

For whatever speed advantage it promises, BRT will cause problems with bus movement and traffic flow. There are too many elements that will stall BRT. Just by allowing right turns in the bus lanes negates the point of even having the lanes. What good are the lanes when buses have to wait behind turning vehicles, who in turn have to wait for pedestrians to finish crossing the street. Since Rapids only stop where transfers are made to another bus line, every Rapid stop generates pedestrian traffic.

A Rapid that would have to wait one traffic light to continue. That’s no better than what we have now.

The Rapid is also in the unique predicament that it will be a failure even if it succeeds, as paradoxical as it may sound. Bus-only lanes may only encourage ridership on a line that is no longer capable of handling ridership solely on buses. Wilshire has too many bus riders. Metro is already running the equivalent of a division’s worth of buses just dedicated to Wilshire service. If buses were evenly spaced out, you’d have frequencies of 15 to 30 seconds between buses! The Wilshire trunk is practically an escalator.

Also, look at Metro whining about how Orange Line has been running over capacity ever since it has opened. Orange Line represents the most ideal form of BRT, yet it is over capacity with just a third of Wilshire’s ridership.

As Mr. Kavanagh said, we need the Purple Line built yesterday. I know how much more daunting that task is, and I know nothing short of a miracle will get the subway expedited, but Wilshire BRT is just unworkable.

Here is some numbers from the small number of firms that have adopted the program in compliance of the law in spite of not being forced to:

“Still, some companies did comply, and in 1997 Shoup examined eight firms in southern California to learn if it altered employees’ travel behavior. The results varied widely from firm to firm, but overall Shoup found significant changes. On average, solo driving dropped 17 percent, carpooling increased by 64 percent, transit use rose by 50 percent, bicycling and walking rose one-third, and vehicle-miles traveled and vehicle emissions each fell by about 12 percent per employee per year.”

http://www.its.berkeley.edu/itsreview/ITSReviewonline/july2002/parking_cashout.html

Official Website Outlining Program:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/tsaq/cashout/cashout.htm

So any serious discussion of reducing commuter congestion should include discussion of the Parking Cash-Out Law and the theories behind it.

The problem with looking at the bigger number, commuters, to the exclusion of all those other car trips, is that small percentage changes in numbers of cars on the road can reap large changes to traffic flow. There is a point where highways and roads reach their peak, and then after that, small increases in traffic create tremendous amounts of slowing on an exponential curve. This is one of the reasons the commute home is often worse then the commute into work, because later in the day more errands, recreational and other non commuting trips are active.

In some cases a 5% reduction in the number of cars can result in a 50% increase in traffic speeds when looking at the fact that traffic can get as slow as 10 mph in some places. I highly recommend anyone who cares about this sort of stuff to read Tom Vanderbilt’s Traffic and the huge index in the back, it’s quite enlightening.

Maybe it’s that I put peak hour work-time commutes in a different category than others. The crux of our transportation problem are work commutes, not weekend trips to Target.

Dana:

Nothing anyone suggested here was complex to understand and any person has the capability of seeing the implications of rapids, locals, vehicular right-turns and pedestrians all sharing the same limited time in the traffic signal light by just spending 10 mins during peak hour observing the traffic situation at any major intersection on Wilshire Blvd!

It’s not surprising that you have nothing to contribute to the discussion other than insults. The lack of desire to engage in any type of independent analysis is a trademark of so many “leaders” of transit advocacy organizations in Southern California. Please find better and more productive ways of using your time.

In defense of that theory, I don’t think that it’s about recreational driving, but more about using driving more efficiently and sparingly by prioritizing. If driving is more difficult or less cost effective (time and money), then you will try to combine trips, reduce some, and possible reprioritize what is wants and needs. Is making a special trip to Target for some new curtains a need? I guess that depends on who you ask, but I feel that many more car trips are made then is necessary because driving is made so convenient.

Los Angeles is in fact a unique environment, however that doesn’t change the fact that we induce more car trips then is necessary by overly subsidizing conveniences like ample free or under priced parking.

I live and work on Wilshire and will take my day to day experience about conditions over the various lengthy bricks posted on this blog that seem to substitute vehemence and alleged expertise (“observing pedestrian/vehicular movements” — oh, please!) for anything substantive. BRT is a good idea and will help move people faster.

If we stop inducing car trips, the cars won’t need “somewhere else to go” – they won’t be on the streets in the first place!

Your assumption is predicated on the theory that a significant number of people are driving out of recreation and have a reasonable alternative that they’re not exploring, as opposed to driving out of NEED that has nothing to do with “the convenience” of the automobile. I have to disagree.

I lived in Cambridge, the model city for all of these concepts thrown around: traffic calming, bike lanes, smart growth, etc., and the reality is, like my comments on the flawed belief that “what’s good for Curtiba would be good for Wilshire” without diving into the details of why Curtiba BRT is working, there is a whole lot more going on in Cambridge that contributes to it’s success. It’s not just a repudiation of the automobile. And it goes without saying that Cambridge-Boston are laid out differently. Their regional commuting challenges are no where near as complex.

I question whether people understand how unique our traffic challenge is in L.A. There isn’t another city in this country that has SO MANY major economic centers so dispersed. We’ve got the studios in Burbank, the high rises in Westwood/Century City, Downtown LA, LAX, Warner Center and El Segundo with moderate residential density everywhere.

In most other cities in the country, and I would venture to guess in most European cities, traveling from El Segundo and Downtown Glendale would require crossing a state line!

It is 27 miles between El Segundo and Downtown Glendale. And in those 27 miles of travel you’ll be hard pressed to pass through a census tract without 10K/sq mile density.

Understand the distance between El Segundo and Downtown Glendale is almost the same as the distance between Greenwich, Connecticut and Times Square!!!! (31 miles)

We’ve got unique problems in LA people.

People are driving for a reason.

People ain’t on the bus/train/bike for a reason.

Well, what about the theory that traffic is more like a gas (It will disperse to any volume that can contain it)? Witness how congestion on the 405 has now spread to the Canyon roads.

And this whole quibble about the 20, 720, or 920 – uh, what is up with your guys on this one? If there is a protected right of way for the bus, why would there need to be three types of service running on this corridor in the first place?

Re-read number 4 of my comment in number 14. Now look in the mirror.

Bus bunching is a problem even if you can’t grasp it.

And there’s an answer to your question, too. There’s a 720 because there’s a 20. All limited-stop lines are added to locals to manage overcrowding. There’s a 20 because there are distances too great to walk for most bus riders (La Brea to Fairfax, Santa Monica to Westwood, Alvarado to Vermont). There’s a 920 because a limited-limited line had to be added to manage the crowding on the Rapid.

With transit advocates like this, who needs the AAA?

Snark backfires when this statement can also be taken as a compliment. But I thank you anyway. ;>

I think this bus lane might help a little, but I think this proposal as it is currently envisioned, is going to be like putting a band aid on a gushing wound. The 720 is constantly crowded to capacity and then some, and if it moves along a couple minutes faster, that isn’t going to do a whole lot for the capacity problem. We need the Wilshire subway done yesterday.

The “traffic-is-like-water” fallacy is not true no matter how many times you repeat it.

In general, if we reduced a road’s capacity for cars we would also reduce the total number of car trips taken in a day. It is that simple. Car trips don’t magically sit at a fixed number every day, woe unto the engineer that dares to allow traffic to “flow”.

Quite the contrary, car trips in L.A. are heavily induced by free parking, wide streets, and local, state, and federal subsidies of private automobile trips (both directly and indirectly).

If we stop inducing car trips, the cars won’t need “somewhere else to go” – they won’t be on the streets in the first place!

Again, traffic is not like water! If you block up a path for traffic, after a few days it will NOT pool until it spills over.

Think of it this way: A bridge between two places exists, and people use it to travel from Point A to Point B. The brdige is removed, and on the first day after the removal people go to the place of the bridge. The day after the bridge is removed, people do not continue to show up, waiting for the bridge to re-build itself. They change the way they do business and get around.

And this whole quibble about the 20, 720, or 920 – uh, what is up with your guys on this one? If there is a protected right of way for the bus, why would there need to be three types of service running on this corridor in the first place? Don’t you think that one bus line, plying a dedicated right of way, ought to suffice? With the improved headway of a bus in its own dedicated lane, who gives a crap wht number is slapped on the front? What makes you guys so sure that the current regime of bus lines would remain static after such a significant change is made to the right of way?

With transit advocates like this, who needs the AAA?

Dude, you’re employing one of the biggest fallacies in American transportation planning: the “traffic-is-like-water” fallacy.

Then tell me, where are those cars going to go?

It’s almost certain the drivers will not go on the buses. Plus, the Wilshire buses already have too many riders as it is. You don’t want a perceived improvement like bus lanes bringing more riders into buses that do not have room for them.

For any driver that has to stay on Wilshire, you have to fit one lane’s worth of traffic into the two remaining lanes. If traffic can barely move as it is when vehicles can use all the lanes, what now if they are clamoring for space when one lane is taken out?

You say “Damn the cars.” I say “Fine. But how is a 720 or a 920 supposed to overtake a 20 without passing?”

Turnout lanes are not possible in most parts of Wilshire. A bus is 102 inches wide. A turnout would need to be about 120 inches wide. That’s essentially the width of a highway lane. Most sidewalks aren’t wide enough to allow that.

So the buses will have to contend with traffic, even with their own lanes. Whatever traffic Wilshire cannot hold, it will spill over onto intersecting streets (slowing down turns) or drivers will alternate onto parallel streets. The arterials have bus routes, all of which have high ridership. The added traffic will slow down these routes.

Brayj also wrote:
Big deal! Let ‘em wait!

Transportation planning out of spite helps no one. Taking over lanes for buses just to flip the bird to motorists doesn’t improve transit service.

We make a huge step, yes, but also make several steps back. The bus lanes cause too many problems: trapping Wilshire buses in the lanes and slowing down intersecting and parallel routes because of spillover traffic.

Bus lanes just will not work on Wilshire. They will not work if they had their own lanes. They will not work if they had to share lanes with bikes and right-turning cars.

Bus lanes just will L.A.-up Wilshire.

“Let’s not forget the spillover problems. Not only would traffic get so bad in the remaining Wilshire lanes that buses can no longer leapfrog, but some of the vehicle traffic will shift over to other major arterials (Third, Sixth, Eighth, Olympic, Santa Monica and Pico) and slow down the local buses on those streets. Every trip might have 10 minutes added to it.”

Dude, you’re employing one of the biggest fallacies in American transportation planning: the “traffic-is-like-water” fallacy.

Traffic is not like water. If you cut off access to certain types of modes, travel by that mode tends to drop off. People either change modes, change destinations, or simply stop traveling.

Traffic is not like water!